Method and composition for improving the health of young monogastric mammals

ABSTRACT

A method of improving the health of a first group of young monogastric mammals, the first group of young monogastric mammals nursing from a first lactating monogastric mammal during a pre-weaning period, the method including feeding the first lactating monogastric mammal an effective amount of an animal feed during the pre-weaning period, and feeding the first lactating monogastric mammal an effective amount of sugar alcohol during the pre-weaning period.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to a method and composition forfeeding lactating monogastric mammals. More particularly, the presentinvention relates to a method and composition for improving the health,litter weight, and survival of young, monogastric mammals, such asnursing piglets.

The economic viability of a pork producer is directly related to thelitters of the producer's sows. In particular, litter weights at weaningand the mortality rate of the litters are important factors. Over thepast decade or so, advances in sow feeding techniques have caused littersizes produced by sows to generally increase while generally decreasingthe lactation periods of farrowing sows. Despite these improved litterresults, mortality rates for piglet litters have not significantlydropped while overall litter weights at weaning have disappointinglyremained stagnant.

Piglet mortality rates are typically highest during the first four daysfollowing piglet birth. Despite advances in sow feeding technology,litter mortality rates of piglets, as measured from birth to weaning,have continued to average around 12%, with the top ten pork producersaveraging around 10.2% and the bottom ten producers averaging around15.5%. This is troublesome for pork producers because the economicviability of their business is directly related to the overall number ofpiglets per litter that survive weaning and thereafter reach marketweight.

Data from the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS, 2001;http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm/Swine/swine.htm) indicate thatabout 10.9 piglets are born per sow per litter, on average. However,only about 10.0 piglets of each litter are alive at birth, and onlyabout 8.9 piglets per litter survive at weaning. This translates to apre-weaning mortality rate among piglet litters to be about 11.0%. Layet al., 2001 (JAS, 2001). Starvation, low birth weight, sickness,hypothermia, and crushing or suffocation all contribute to thisrelatively high piglet mortality rate.

A larger litter weight at weaning often corresponds directly to how fastthe piglets of the litter will grow to market weight. On the other hand,a smaller litter weight often means the litter has a higher percentageof low weight piglets that are more likely to die prior to weaning, ascompared to their heavier brothers and sisters of the litter. Forinstance, lighter weight piglets are especially susceptible tohypothermia because of they have a larger ratio of surface area to bodyweight than heavier piglets. To counter this susceptibility tohypothermia, lighter weight piglets tend to lie more closely to the sowto obtain warmth, though such close proximity to the sow increases thechance the lighter weight piglets will be crushed or suffocated by thesow.

Additionally, lighter weight piglets typically have only a minimalamount of reserve energy stored at birth and therefore are at anincreased risk of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) shortly after birth ifthe lighter weight piglets do not receive adequate nourishment in thefirst few days following birth. Similarly, lighter weight piglets thatare sick, injured, or out-competed at mealtime by heavier piglets of thelitter may miss a feeding, become progressively weaker and thereforecontinue to miss subsequent feedings, and eventually starve to death.Thus it is increasingly important to pork producers to assure that allpiglets of the litter, especially those with a relatively low birthweight and most at risk of dying, receive adequate caloric intakestarting at birth to maximize piglet survival rates from each litter.

Although various feeding techniques have been proposed and/or practicedover the years and have enhanced the overall knowledge base with respectto swine feeding, these techniques have not adequately addressed theproblem of how to most economically, efficiently, and effectivelyincrease both the survival rate of young piglets at weaning and youngpiglet litter weights at weaning. The present invention provides acomposition and method for feeding lactating sows that has beensurprisingly found to significantly reduce mortality rates of nursingpiglets, while increasing litter and young piglet weights at weaning.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention includes a method of improving the health of agroup of young monogastric mammals where the group of young monogastricmammals is nursing from a lactating monogastric mammal during apre-weaning period. The method entails feeding the lactating monogastricmammal an effective amount of an animal feed during the pre-weaningperiod, and feeding the lactating monogastric mammal an effective amountof sugar alcohol during the pre-weaning period. The present inventionfurther includes a method of reducing the mortality rate of a group ofyoung monogastric mammals, a method of increasing the weight gained by agroup of young monogastric mammals during a pre-weaning period, and alactating monogastric mammal ration.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The present invention generally relates to a method and composition forfeeding lactating monogastric mammals. More particularly, the presentinvention relates to a method and composition for improving the health,such as the survival rate and litter weight, of young, monogastricmammals, such as nursing piglets. For example, the present inventionincludes methods and compositions for increasing the survival rate ofnursing piglets at weaning, increasing live piglet litter weights atweaning, and increasing individual live piglet weights at weaning. Themethod of the present invention generally entails providing lactatingsows with a feed composition that includes sugar alcohol, where the feedcomposition may, for example, be orally fed to the lactating sows.

It has been surprisingly discovered that if sugar alcohol is consumedby, or otherwise provided to, lactating, monogastric mammals, even atlow rates, such as rates on the order of about five grams of sugaralcohol per day to about 100 grams per day, or even higher, as part of afeed composition, young monogastric mammals that are nursing from thelactating, monogastric mammals exhibit improved health, as compared tolitters of the young monogastric mammals (i.e.: groups of the youngmonogastric mammals) that are nursing from lactating, monogastricmammals not receiving any sugar alcohol. For example, litters of theyoung monogastric mammals that are nursing from lactating, monogastricmammals that receive sugar alcohol in this fashion exhibit increasedsurvival rates (i.e. decreased mortality rates), both over an entirepre-weaning period and over intermediate portions of the pre-weaningperiod, as compared to litters of the young monogastric mammals that arenursing from lactating, monogastric mammals not receiving any sugaralcohol.

Likewise, litters of the young monogastric mammals that are nursing fromlactating, monogastric mammals that receive sugar alcohol in thisfashion exhibit increased overall litter live weights (i.e. total weightof living young monogastric mammals), as compared to litters of theyoung monogastric mammals that are nursing from lactating, monogastricmammals not receiving any sugar alcohol. Furthermore, individual youngmonogastric mammals that are nursing from lactating, monogastric mammalsthat receive sugar alcohol in this fashion exhibit increased meanweights, as compared to individual young monogastric mammals that arenursing from lactating, monogastric mammals not receiving any sugaralcohol.

The inventors have observed other surprises while practicing the presentinvention. For example, despite yielding healthier young monogastricmammals with lower mortality rates, increased overall litter liveweights, and/or increased mean individual weights during all or part ofthe pre-weaning period, lactating, monogastric mammals that receivesugar alcohol in this fashion while nursing the young monogastricmammals surprisingly show no significant changes in overall feed intakeduring the pre-weaning period, as compared to lactating, monogastricmammals not receiving any sugar alcohol while nursing young monogastricmammals. As another example, despite still yielding healthier youngmonogastric mammals with lower mortality rates, increased overall litterlive weights, and/or increased mean individual weights during all orpart of the pre-weaning period, lactating, monogastric mammals thatreceive sugar alcohol in this fashion while nursing the youngmonogastric mammals surprisingly, though not necessarily desirably, showno significant changes in backfat thickness during the pre-weaningperiod, as compared to lactating, monogastric mammals not receiving anysugar alcohol while nursing young monogastric mammals.

The ability of lactating, monogastric mammals that receive sugar alcoholin accordance with the present invention, to yield healthier youngmonogastric mammals with lower mortality rates, increased overall litterlive weights, and/or increased mean individual weights during all orpart of the pre-weaning period, as compared to lactating, monogastricmammals that do not receive sugar alcohol in accordance with the presentinvention, while not significantly increasing either backfat thicknessor feed intake, is believed to demonstrate an increase in milkproduction efficiency by the lactating, monogastric mammals that receivesugar alcohol in accordance with the present invention during thepre-weaning period. Even while achieving this increased milk productionefficiency, the lactating, monogastric mammals that receive sugaralcohol in accordance with the present invention produce beneficialamounts of milk with a nutritional composition that is beneficial to thehealth of young monogastric mammals nursing from the lactating,monogastric mammals that receive the sugar alcohol.

As used herein, the term “milk production efficiency” means the ratio ofthe volume of milk produced by the lactating monogastric mammal, such asthe lactating sow, versus the amount of feed consumed by the lactatingmonogastric mammal, such as the lactating sow, based on the dry weightof the feed. Preferably, lactating, monogastric mammals, such aslactating sows, that receive sugar alcohol in accordance with thepresent invention exhibit an increased milk production efficiency duringthe pre-weaning period, as compared to lactating, monogastric mammals,such as lactating sows, that do not receive sugar alcohol in accordancewith the present invention. More preferably, lactating, monogastricmammals that receive sugar alcohol in accordance with the presentinvention exhibit at least about a two percent increased in milkproduction efficiency during the pre-weaning period, and more preferablyat least about a four percent increase in milk production efficiencyduring the pre-weaning period, as compared to lactating, monogastricmammals that do not receive sugar alcohol in accordance with the presentinvention

As used herein, the term “monogastric mammal” refers to mammals thathave a stomach with only a single chamber. Monogastric mammals aredifferent from, and therefore are distinguished from, ruminants.Ruminants are even-toed hoofed animals, such as cattle, sheep, goats,oxen, musk ox, llamas, alpacas, guanicos, deer, bison, antelopes,camels, and giraffes that have a complex 3- or 4-chamber stomach andtypically re-chew what food material that has been previously swallowed.The single-chambered stomach of monogastric mammals causes digestion andnutrient assimilation to occur differently in monogastric animals, ascompared to ruminants. Some non-exhaustive examples of monogastricmammals are swine, such as pigs and hogs; rats; mice; horses; rabbits;raccoons; dogs; cats; and humans. The present invention is believedapplicable and beneficial to all monogastric mammals; therefore, theterm monogastric mammal, as used herein, means all monogastric mammals,any individual example of any monogastric mammal, or any combination ofdifferent monogastric mammals.

Swine, such as pigs and hogs, are examples of monogastric mammals ofparticular interest to the present invention since the researchculminating in the present invention was ultimately directed atincreasing production of farm-based monogastric mammals for slaughterand swine are probably the best example of farm-based monogastricmammals that are raised for slaughter. Consequently, the presentinvention is generally described herein with reference to swine, such aspigs and hogs. Nonetheless, though the present invention is generallydescribed in the context of swine, the present invention is believedequally applicable to any monogastric mammal, including, but not limitedto swine, such as pigs and hogs; rats; mice; horses; rabbits; raccoons;dogs; cats; and humans, for purposes of achieving the described healthbenefits of the present invention.

Weaning of young, monogastric mammals occurs when the diet of the youngmonogastric animals is modified to include primarily solid animal feed,as opposed to liquid feed, such as sow's milk in the case of youngpiglets. Otherwise stated, young, monogastric mammals are considered tobe weaned when the young, monogastric mammals are no longer allowed tonurse from any female monogastric mammal or is no longer primarilyprovide either natural liquid milk from any female monogastric mammal orartificial liquid milk that simulates natural liquid milk of any femalemonogastric mammal. For example, piglets are considered to be weanedwhen the piglets are no longer allowed to nurse from any sow and are notprimarily provided either natural sow's milk or an artificial sow's milkthat simulates natural sow's milk. Correspondingly, as used herein, theterm “pre-weaning period” refers to the period when nutrients areprimarily supplied to the young, monogastric mammals, such as piglets,in liquid form, as part of a liquid feed, and the term “post-weaningperiod” refers to the period when nutrients are no longer primarilyprovided to young, monogastric mammals, such as the piglets, in the formof liquid feed.

As used herein, the term “sugar alcohol” means a polyhydric alcoholformed by the reduction of the carbonyl group of a sugar to a carbonatom of the sugar alcohol. The sugar alcohol that maybe employed whenpracticing the present invention may take any form. For example, thesugar alcohol may be employed as solid, crystalline, sugar alcohol; asugar alcohol syrup; an aqueous mixture of water and crystalline sugaralcohol; a mixture of an edible organic solvent and crystalline sugaralcohol; an aqueous mixture of water and sugar alcohol syrup; and/or amixture of an edible organic solvent and sugar alcohol syrup.

When the sugar alcohol is supplied as an aqueous mixture, the aqueousmixture may contain any concentration of sugar alcohol. Thus, somenon-exhaustive examples of permissible aqueous sugar alcohol solutionsare aqueous sugar alcohol solutions containing from about 5 weightpercent sugar alcohol to about 99 weight percent sugar alcohol and morepreferably from about 30 weight percent sugar alcohol to about 80 weightpercent sugar alcohol, based on the total weight of the aqueous sugaralcohol solution. Still more preferably, the aqueous sugar alcoholsolution contains up to about 70 weight percent sugar alcohol, based onthe total weight of the aqueous sugar alcohol solution, since aqueoussugar alcohol solutions containing more than about 70 weight percentsugar alcohol tend to be fairly viscous solutions that are moredifficult to dispense and measure at ambient temperatures of about 72°F., or lower. Even more preferably, the aqueous sugar alcohol solutioncontains from about 50 weight percent sugar alcohol to about 70 weightpercent sugar alcohol, based on the total weight of the aqueous sugaralcohol solution, to reduce the amount of water added to the animal feedwhen incorporating the sugar alcohol in the feed composition. Mostpreferably, the aqueous sugar alcohol solution contains about 70 weightpercent sugar alcohol, based on the total weight of the aqueous sugaralcohol solution, to further minimize the amount of water added to theanimal feed when incorporating the sugar alcohol in the feedcomposition.

Some non-exhaustive examples sugar alcohols that may be employed as thesugar alcohol of the present invention include adonitol; allitol;altritol (D-altritol, L-altritol, and D,L altritol); arabinitol(D-arabinitol, L-arabinitol, and D,L arabinitol); dulcitol (a.k.a.galactitol); erythritol; galaxitol; glucitol (D-glucitol, L-glucitol,and D,L glucitol); glycerol; iditol (D-iditol and L-iditol); inositol;isomalt; lactitol; maltitol; mannitol (D-mannitol, L-mannitol, and D,Lmannitol); perseitol; ribitol; rhamnitol; sorbitol; threitol(D-threitol, L-threitol, and D,L threitol); xylitol; and any combinationof these or other sugar alcohols. One preferred example of the sugaralcohol that may be employed when practicing the present invention issorbitol.

In addition to, or along with, the sugar alcohol, the feed compositionthat is provided to the lactating monogastric mammal, such as thelactating sow, may include any other conventional animal feed componentthat is capable of being blended with the sugar alcohol as part of thefeed composition or that is capable of being combined with the feedcomposition of the present invention, so long as the feed component doesnot disrupt digestive function of the lactating monogastric mammal, isnot otherwise harmful to the lactating monogastric mammal, and is notharmful to the young monogastric mammal nursing from the lactatingmonogastric mammal vis a vis the milk supplied from the lactatingmonogastric mammal to the young monogastric mammal. Where themonogastric mammal is swine, some non-exhaustive examples of suchconventional animal feed components that may be included as part of thefeed composition of the present invention include water; processedgrains, such as ground corn, soybean meal, and any combination of theseor other processed grains; a high protein meal derived from any suitableanimal or marine source; feed-grade tallow; any grease, such as whitegrease or yellow grease, hydrolyzed fat from any animal or plant source;commercially available formula feeds; and any mixture of any of theseanimal feed components that results in an animal feed that meets thenutritional requirements of the lactating swine.

Some examples of suitable formula feeds where the lactating monogastricmammal is a lactating sow include the Litter Max® line of swinelactation feeds that from available from Land O'Lakes Farmland Feed LLCof Arden Hills, Minn. For example, Litter Max HML Premix maybe employedas a component of the feed composition of the present invention as aformula feed. Litter Max® HML Premix contains vitamins and minerals thatsupport enhanced gestation and lactation performance in sows. A varietyof other premixes, such as inhibitor premixes, enzyme premixes, vitaminpremixes, trace mineral premixes, and any combination of any of thesepremixes may also be included in the animal feed that is employed in thepresent invention. One exemplary inhibitor premix is Micro-Aid® premixthat is available from Canadian Bio-Systems Inc. of Calgary, Alberta,Canada. Micro-Aid® premix inhibits the urease enzyme and thereby reducesrelease of ammonia from urea in fecal material produced by the swine.

Where the lactating monogastric mammal is a lactating sow, the animalfeed may generally contain about ten to about thirty weight percentcrude protein, preferably contains about fourteen to about twenty weightpercent crude protein, and more preferably contains about sixteen weightpercent crude protein, based on the total dry weight of the animal feed(excluding the dry weight of the sugar alcohol). Where the lactatingmonogastric mammal is a lactating sow, the animal feed may generallycontain from zero to about ten weight percent crude fat, preferablycontains about two to about four weight percent fat, and more preferablycontains about 2.8 weight percent crude fat., based on the total dryweight of the animal feed (excluding the dry weight of the sugaralcohol). One preferred formulation of the animal feed, where thelactating monogastric mammal is a lactating sow, includes about 63.9weight percent ground corn, about 28.65 weight percent soybean meal,about 5 weight percent of the Litter® HML Premix, about 2.3 weightpercent choice white grease, and about 0.10 weight percent Micro-Aidpremix, based upon the dry matter weight of the feed composition(excluding the dry weight of the sugar alcohol).

Collectively, the animal feed and the sugar alcohol form the feedcomposition. The animal feed that is provided in combination with thesugar alcohol may be provided to the lactating monogastric mammal in anyconventional fashion, but is preferably orally fed to the lactatingmonogastric mammal. Likewise, the sugar alcohol may be provided to thelactating monogastric mammal in any conventional fashion, but ispreferably orally fed to the lactating monogastric mammal. For example,the sugar alcohol may in the form of solid sugar alcohol crystals thatare physically mixed with other components of the feed composition. Asanother alternative, the sugar alcohol may be physically bound withinanother component of the feed composition, as in an extruded nugget thatcontains the sugar alcohol along with, for example, grain-based meal(s)of the feed composition. As yet another alternative, a liquid form ofthe sugar alcohol may be applied onto all or a portion of the animalfeed and thereafter mixed with the animal feed or with the portion ofthe animal feed.

Applying a liquid form of the sugar alcohol onto a portion of the animalfeed and thereafter mixing the applied liquid with the animal feedcomposition is one preferred technique for incorporating the sugaralcohol into the feed composition. According to this technique, anaqueous solution of the sugar alcohol that preferably contains at leastabout thirty weight percent sugar alcohol, based upon the total weightof the mixture, is heated to an application temperature. The applicationtemperature is preferably warm enough to allow the aqueous solution ofthe sugar alcohol to be easily applied onto the portion of the animalfeed by the chosen application technique. The application temperature ispreferably in the range of about 100° F. to about 120° F.

The warm aqueous sugar alcohol solution may then be applied to theanimal feed portion in any conventional fashion that is effective tocoat the animal feed portion with the warm aqueous sugar alcoholsolution, such as spraying the warm aqueous sugar alcohol solution ontothe animal feed portion, brushing the warm aqueous sugar alcoholsolution onto the animal feed portion, dipping the animal feed portionin the warm aqueous sugar alcohol solution, tumbling the animal feedportion with the warm aqueous sugar alcohol solution, or any combinationof these. Preferably the warm aqueous sugar alcohol solution is sprayedonto the animal feed portion using a conventional hand-held sprayer. Theanimal feed portion coated with the warm aqueous sugar alcohol solutionmay then optionally be tumbled and mixed to more uniformly distributethe warm aqueous sugar alcohol solution. Thereafter, either with orwithout the optional tumbling and mixing step, the sugar-alcohol-coatedanimal feed portion (subsequently referred to as the “top-dressed animalfeed portion” is preferably allowed to dry before the top-dressed animalfeed portion is provided to the lactating monogastric mammal, such asthe lactating sows. In one preferred example, the top-dressed animalfeed portion is merely placed on top of the remainder of the animal feedprovided to the lactating monogastric mammal for a particular feeding sothe animal feed portion (top-dressed animal feed portion and theremainder of the animal feed portion) collectively contains the sugaralcohol dosage to be consumed by the lactating monogastric mammal duringthe particular feeding.

The sugar alcohol that is provided to the lactating monogastric mammalwill typically be provided starting on the day when the youngmonogastric mammals are nursing from the lactating monogastric mammaland ending when the young monogastric mammals are no longer nursing fromthe lactating monogastric mammal (i.e. during the weaning period). Thesugar alcohol dosage provided to the lactating monogastric mammal may beprovided in any number of periodic increments to the lactatingmonogastric mammal that collectively equal the sugar alcohol dosage,with the caveat that the sugar alcohol dosage should preferably beprovided to the lactating monogastric mammal on a daily basis as a dailysugar alcohol dosage. Also, each sugar alcohol dosage preferablycontains at least about the same amount of sugar alcohol. Preferably,when the sugar alcohol is provided as a daily sugar alcohol dosage, thedaily sugar alcohol dosage is divided into two increments thatcollectively equal the daily sugar alcohol dosage.

Though subsequent references to sugar alcohol dosages are providedprimarily in terms of daily sugar alcohol dosages, it is to beunderstood that sugar alcohol dosages provided to the lactatingmonogastric mammals at other intervals, such as every other day or everythird day, that attain the benefits of the present invention areconsidered to be within the scope of the present invention. Also, thoughthe amount of sugar alcohol provided to the lactating monogastricmammals is stated on a daily basis, those of ordinary skill in the artwill understand the amount of sugar alcohol provided on a daily basiswill need to be converted to reflect any other sugar alcohol dosageinterval; for example, where a daily sugar alcohol dosage of about 26grams per day is employed, the sugar alcohol dosage, when provided on anevery other day basis, would be about 52 grams per every other day, andthe sugar alcohol dosage, when provided on an every third day basis,would be about 78 grams per every third day.

Any dosage of sugar alcohol may be provided to lactating monogastricmammals in accordance with the present invention. The sugar alcoholdosage provided to the lactating monogastric mammals preferably includesan amount of sugar alcohol that is effective (i.e. an effective amount)to improve at least one health characteristic of young monogastricmammals that are nursing from the lactating monogastric mammal receivingthe sugar alcohol dosage, as compared to that (those) healthcharacteristic(s) of young monogastric mammals that are nursing fromlactating monogastric mammal not receiving the sugar alcohol dosage. Inthe context of piglets, and equally applicable to any young monogastricmammals other than piglets, some non-exhaustive examples of such healthcharacteristics include: increased mean weight gain by individualpiglets of the litter during any portion of the pre-weaning period afterthe onset of nursing, increased mean weight gain by individual pigletsof the litter at weaning (i.e.: during the entire pre-weaning period),increased overall live weight gain by a litter of piglets during anyportion of the pre-weaning period after the onset of nursing, increasedoverall live weight gain by a litter of piglets at weaning (i.e. duringthe entire pre-weaning period), a decreased mortality rate among alitter of piglets as measured during any portion of the pre-weaningperiod after the onset of nursing, and a decreased mortality rate amonga litter of piglets as measured over the entire pre-weaning period atthe completion of weaning.

The amount of the animal feed provided to the lactating monogastricmammals in combination with the concentration of the sugar alcohol (i.e.the sugar alcohol dosage) incorporated in the animal feed composition inaccordance with the present invention is preferably effective (i.e. aneffective amount) to support improvement of at least one healthcharacteristic of young monogastric mammals that are nursing from thelactating monogastric mammal receiving the sugar alcohol, as compared tothat (those) health characteristic(s) of young monogastric mammals thatare nursing from lactating monogastric mammal not receiving the sugaralcohol. Typically, and permissibly, the concentration of the sugaralcohol in the feed composition that is fed to the lactating monogastricmammal, such as the lactating sow, may range from about 0.1 weightpercent to about 10 weight percent, based on the total dry weight of thefeed composition, for purposes of achieving one or more improved healthcharacteristics of young monogastric mammals, such as piglets, that arenursing from the lactating monogastric mammal, such as the lactatingsow, that is receiving feed composition.

Some non-exhaustive examples of daily sugar alcohol dosage rates thatare believed to be effective to improve at least one healthcharacteristic of young monogastric mammals, such as piglets, that arenursing from the lactating monogastric mammal, such as the lactatingsow, that is receiving the daily sugar alcohol dosage, as compared tothat (those) health characteristic(s) of young monogastric mammals, suchas piglets, that are nursing from another lactating monogastric mammal,such as another lactating sow, that is not receiving the daily sugaralcohol dosage are daily sugar alcohol dosage rates ranging from aboutfive grams of sugar alcohol per day to about 200 grams per day, or more.Two exemplary daily sugar alcohol dosage rates within this range thatare effective to improve at least one health characteristic of pigletsthat are nursing from the lactating sow that is receiving the dailysugar alcohol dosage, as compared to that (those) healthcharacteristic(s) of piglets that are nursing from a lactating sow notreceiving the daily sugar alcohol dosage are a daily sugar alcoholdosage rate of about 25 grams of sugar alcohol per day and a daily sugaralcohol dosage of about 50 grams per day, such as sugar alcohol dosagerates of 26 and 52 grams per day, respectively.

Any amount of the animal feed may be provided to the lactatingmonogastric mammals in combination with the sugar alcohol dosage to makeup the feed composition in accordance with the present invention. Theamount of the animal feed provided to the lactating monogastric mammalsin combination with the sugar alcohol dosage in accordance with thepresent invention is preferably effective (i.e. an effective amount) tosupport improvement of at least one health characteristic of youngmonogastric mammals that are nursing from the lactating monogastricmammal receiving the sugar alcohol dosage, as compared to that (those)health characteristic(s) of young monogastric mammals that are nursingfrom lactating monogastric mammal not receiving the sugar alcoholdosage.

As one non-exhaustive example of suitable animal feed amounts forlactating sows, the animal feed may be provided to the lactatingmonogastric mammals, such as the lactating sows, at the rate of aboutfour pounds per day for the first twenty-four hours post-farrowing, atthe rate of about eight pounds per day for the second twenty-four hourperiod post-farrowing (i.e. from twenty-four hours post-farrowing toforty-eight hours post-farrowing), at the rate of about twelve poundsper day for the third twenty-four hour period post-farrowing (i.e. fromforty-eight hours post-farrowing to seventy-two hours post-farrowing),and ad libitum after the first seventy-two hours post-farrowing throughthe day of piglet weaning. The animal feed may permissibly be providedto the lactating monogastric mammals, such as the lactating sows, at anyrate, including ad libitum, during the first seventy-two hourspost-farrowing. Preferably, however, the animal feed is provided to thelactating monogastric mammals, such as the lactating sows, at a reducedrate that mimics the normal feed intake pattern of the lactatingmonogastric mammals during the first seventy-two hours post-farrowing tominimize waste of animal feed not consumed by the lactating monogastricmammals during the first seventy-two hours post-farrowing when theappetite of the lactating monogastric mammals is typically somewhatlower that normal due to the normal recovery from the farrowing event.

As used herein, unless otherwise indicated, any reference to “first,”“second,” “third,” etc., when used in combination with “lactatingmammal,” “group of young mammals,” “lactating sow,” and “litter ofpiglets” is provided for purposes of distinguishing between differentlactating mammals, between different groups of young mammals, betweendifferent lactating sows, and between different litters of piglets, andis not used as a reference to the number of litters or groups of youngmammals delivered (birthed) by any particular lactating mammal or to thenumber of litters or groups of piglets delivered (birthed or farrowed)by any particular lactating sow.

The effective amount of the sugar alcohol may be considered in acomparison of a first lactating sow with a second lactating sow during apre-weaning period, where the first lactating sow is fed the effectiveamount of the sugar alcohol in combination with the effective amount ofthe animal feed, a first litter of piglets is nursing from the firstlactating sow, and a second litter of piglets is nursing from the secondlactating sow. When used in combination with the effective amount of thesugar alcohol, the effective amount of the animal feed is the amount ofthe animal feed that is fed to the first lactating sow during the timeperiod when the sugar alcohol is fed to the first lactating sow. Whenthe effective amount of the animal feed is used in combination with theeffective amount of the sugar alcohol, the animal feed and the sugaralcohol are preferably fed to the first lactating sow together as thefeed composition.

When used in combination with the effective amount of the sugar alcohol,the animal feed is preferably fed to the first lactating sow ad libitumafter the first seventy-two hours post farrowing, at a rate of aboutthree to about five pounds per day (as is basis) during the firsttwenty-four hours post-farrowing, at a rate of about seven to about ninepounds per day (as is basis) during the second twenty-four hour periodpost-farrowing, and at a rate of about eleven to about thirteen poundsper day (as is basis) during the third twenty-four hour periodpost-farrowing. More preferably, in combination with the effectiveamount of the sugar alcohol, the animal feed is fed to the firstlactating sow ad libitum after the first seventy-two hours postfarrowing, at a rate of about four pounds per day (as is basis) duringthe first twenty-four hours post-farrowing, at a rate of about eightpounds per day (as is basis) during the second twenty-four hour periodpost-farrowing, and at a rate of about twelve pounds per day (as isbasis) during the third twenty-four hour period post-farrowing. Takingthese considerations into account, the term “effective amount of thesugar alcohol,” as used herein, means an amount of the sugar alcoholthat, when fed during the pre-weaning period along with the effectiveamount of the animal feed to the first lactating sow that:

-   -   (1) is preferably fed an equal amount of the same, or        substantially the same, animal feed as that fed to the second        lactating sow,    -   (2) where the second lactating sow does not receive the        effective amount of the sugar alcohol and preferably does not        receive any sugar alcohol, and    -   (3) while the first lactating sow and the second lactating sow        also have equal access to water ad libitum,        is effective to cause at least one, preferably at least two,        more preferably at least three, still more preferably at least        four, even more preferably at least five, yet even more        preferably at least six, yet still more preferably at least        seven, even still more preferably at least eight, and most        preferably all nine of the following improvements that are        listed in (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) below:    -   (a) an increased mean weight gain by individual piglets of the        first litter of piglets during a portion of the pre-weaning        period, as compared to the mean weight gain by individual        piglets of the second litter of piglets during the portion of        the pre-weaning period;    -   (b) an increased mean weight gain by individual piglets of the        first litter of piglets at weaning (i.e. over the entire, or        essentially the entire, pre-weaning period), as compared to the        mean weight gain by individual piglets of the second litter of        piglets at weaning (i.e. over the entire, or essentially the        entire, pre-weaning period);    -   (c) an increased overall litter live weight gain by the first        litter of piglets during a portion of the pre-weaning period, as        compared to the overall litter live weight gain by the second        litter of piglets during the portion of the pre-weaning period;    -   (d) an increased overall litter live weight gain by the first        litter of piglets at weaning (i.e. over the entire, or        essentially the entire, pre-weaning period), as compared to the        overall litter live weight gain by the second litter of piglets        at weaning (i.e. over the entire, or essentially the entire,        pre-weaning period);    -   (e) a decrease in the mortality rate among the first litter of        piglets to about 4.6 percent, or less, and preferably to about 4        percent, or less, during a portion of the pre-weaning period;    -   (f) a decrease in the mortality rate among the first litter of        piglets to about 4.6 percent, or less, and preferably to about        5.7 percent, or less, at weaning (i.e. over the entire        pre-weaning period);    -   (g) a decrease in the mortality rate among the first litter of        piglets during a portion of the pre-weaning period, as compared        to the mortality rate among the second litter of piglets during        the portion of the pre-weaning period;    -   (h) a decrease in the mortality rate among the first litter of        piglets at weaning (i.e. over the entire pre-weaning period), as        compared to the mortality rate among the second litter of        piglets at weaning (i.e. over the entire pre-weaning period);        and    -   (i) an increase in the milk production efficiency of the first        lactating sow versus the milk production efficiency of the        second lactating sow during all, or at least a portion, of the        pre-weaning period.        Unless otherwise indicated herein, statements referring to the        “effective amount of the sugar alcohol” are equally applicable        to the “effective concentration of the sugar alcohol,” where the        concentration of the sugar alcohol refers to the concentration        of the sugar alcohol in the feed composition, based on the total        dry weight of the feed composition, and feed composition        includes the animal feed and the sugar alcohol.

Despite improving the health of the first litter of piglets, theeffective amount of the sugar alcohol, in combination with the effectiveamount of the animal feed, when consumed by a first lactating sow, doesnot cause any substantial change in animal feed intake, over thepre-weaning period as measured from start to finish of the pre-weaningperiod, as compared to the animal feed intake of a second lactating sowthat is preferably on a diet that includes the animal feed, but is freeof the effective amount of the sugar alcohol and preferably is free ofany sugar alcohol. Also, despite improving the health of the firstlitter of piglets, the effective amount of the sugar alcohol, incombination with the effective amount of the animal feed, when consumedby a first lactating sow, does not cause any substantial change inbackfat thickness, over the pre-weaning period as measured from start tofinish of the pre-weaning period, as compared to the backfat thicknessof a second lactating sow that is preferably on a diet that includes theanimal feed, but is free of the effective amount of the sugar alcoholand preferably is free of any sugar alcohol.

The effective amount of the sugar alcohol, in combination with theeffective amount of the animal feed, is preferably sufficient todecrease the mortality rate among the first litter of piglets during aportion of the pre-weaning period by at least about two percentagepoints, more preferably at least about four percentage points, stillmore preferably at least about five percentage points, even morepreferably by at least about six percentage points, and yet morepreferably by at least about eight percentage points, as compared to themortality rate among the second litter of piglets during the portion ofthe pre-weaning period, where the second lactating sow is preferably ona diet that includes the animal feed, but is free of the effectiveamount of the sugar alcohol and preferably is free of any sugar alcohol.

Also, the effective amount of the sugar alcohol, in combination with theeffective amount of the animal feed, is preferably sufficient todecrease the mortality rate among the first litter of piglets over theentire pre-weaning period by at least about two percentage points, morepreferably at least about four percentage points, still more preferablyby at least about five percentage points, and yet more preferably by atleast about seven percentage points, as compared to the mortality rateamong the second litter of piglets over the entire pre-weaning period,where the second lactating sow is preferably on a diet that includes theanimal feed, but is free of the effective amount of the sugar alcoholand preferably is free of any sugar alcohol.

Additionally, the effective amount of the sugar alcohol, in combinationwith the effective amount of the animal feed, is preferably sufficientto decrease the mortality rate among the first litter of piglets over aportion of the pre-weaning period by at least about ten percent,preferably at least about twenty-five percent, more preferably at leastabout forty-eight percent, still more preferably at least aboutfifty-five percent, still more preferably by at least about sixty-sevenpercent, and yet more preferably by about one hundred percent, ascompared to the mortality rate among the second litter of piglets duringthe portion of the pre-weaning period, where the second lactating sow ispreferably on a diet that includes the animal feed, but is free of theeffective amount of the sugar alcohol and preferably is free of anysugar alcohol.

Next, the effective amount of the sugar alcohol, in combination with theeffective amount of the animal feed, is preferably sufficient todecrease the mortality rate among the first litter of piglets over theentire pre-weaning period by at least about ten percent, preferably atleast about twenty-five percent, more preferably at least aboutforty-five percent, still more preferably at least about forty-eightpercent, and still more preferably at least about fifty-seven percent,as compared to the mortality rate among the second litter of pigletsover the entire pre-entire pre-weaning period, where the secondlactating sow is preferably on a diet that includes the animal feed, butis free of the effective amount of the sugar alcohol and preferably isfree of any sugar alcohol.

Finally, the effective amount of the sugar alcohol, in combination withthe effective amount of the animal feed, is preferably sufficient toincrease the overall litter live weight of the first litter of pigletsover the entire pre-weaning period by at least about five percent,preferably at least about ten percent, more preferably at least abouttwelve percent, still more preferably at least about fourteen percent,and yet more preferably by at least about seventeen percent, as comparedto the overall litter live weight of the second litter of piglets overthe entire pre-weaning period, where the second lactating sow ispreferably on a diet that includes the animal feed, but is free of theeffective amount of the sugar alcohol and preferably is free of anysugar alcohol.

For these comparisons of the first lactating sow, first litter ofpiglets, second lactating sow, and second litter of piglets that areprovided above in regard to the effective amount of the sugar alcoholand the effective amount of the animal feed, the first lactating sow andthe second lactating sow may be provided with different animal feed, butare preferably provided with substantially the same animal feed, and aremore preferably provided with the same animal feed. Furthermore, inthese comparisons of the first lactating sow, the first litter ofpiglets, the second lactating sow, and the second litter of piglets thatare provided above in regard to the effective amount of the sugaralcohol and the effective amount of the animal feed, the first lactatingsow and the second lactating sow are preferably provided equal access tothe animal feed and equal access to water ad libitum.

Though these comparisons that are provided above in regard to theeffective amount of the sugar alcohol and the effective amount of theanimal feed are provided in terms of a first lactating sow and a secondlactating sow, these comparisons are equally applicable to a first groupof lactating sows versus a second group of lactating sows, respectively.In this comparison of groups of lactating sows, the first group oflactating sows and the second group of lactating sows preferably includeabout the same number of lactating sows, preferably include the same orsimilar species (or the same or about the same weighting of differentspecies), and preferably each include lactating sows with the same, orabout the same, median age and with the same or a similar range ofparities.

Various analytical techniques are employed herein. An explanation ofthese techniques follows. All values presented in this document for aparticular parameter, such as weight percent total protein, weightpercent fat, and weight percent total solids, are based on the “as is”sample and are therefore on a “wet basis”, unless otherwise specifiedherein.

Property Determination and Characterization Techniques

To determine the dry matter weight (or dry matter basis or dry basis) ofa particular sample, the sample is first weighed. The weighed sample isthen dried in an oven at a temperature that is adequate to drive offmoisture from the sample without degrading the sample components, suchas a temperature ranging from about 100° C. to about 110° C. The ovendrying is continued until the weight of the dried sample remainsconstant, despite additional oven drying.

To determine the weight percent total solids, wet basis, in a sample,the actual weight of total solids is determined by analyzing the samplein accordance with Method #925.23 (33.2.09) of Official Methods ofAnalysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (16th Ed.,1995). The weight percent total solids, wet basis, is then calculated bydividing the actual weight of total solids by the actual weight of thesample.

To determine the weight percent total protein (crude protein), wetbasis, in a sample, the actual weight of total protein is determined inaccordance with Method #991.20 (33.2.11) of Official Methods ofAnalysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (16th Ed.,1995). The value determined by the above method yields “total Kjeldahlnitrogen,” which is equivalent to “total protein” since the above methodincorporates a factor that accounts for the average amount of nitrogenin protein. Since any and all total Kjeldahl nitrogen determinationspresented herein are based on the above method, the terms “totalKjeldahl nitrogen” and “total protein” are used interchangeably herein.Furthermore, those skilled in the art will recognize that the term“total Kjeldahl nitrogen” is generally used. in the art to mean “totalprotein” with the understanding the factor has been applied. The weightpercent total protein, wet basis, is calculated by dividing the actualweight of total protein by the actual weight of the sample.

To determine the weight percent crude fat, wet basis, in a sample, theactual weight of fat in the sample is determined in accordance withMethod #974.09 (33.7.18) of Official Methods of Analysis, Association ofOfficial Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (16th Ed., 1995). The weight percentfat, wet basis, is then calculated by dividing the actual weight of fatin the sample by the actual weight of the sample.

The present invention is more particularly described in the followingexamples which are intended as illustrations only since numerousmodifications and variations within the scope of the present inventionwill be apparent to those skilled in the art.

EXAMPLES

The examples provided below demonstrate the effect, during thepre-weaning period, of feeding lactating monogastric mammals, generally,and lactating sows, specifically, a control feed in combination with asugar alcohol, such as sorbitol, as compared to the effect of feedinglactating monogastric mammals, generally, and lactating sows,specifically, the control feed in the absence of any sugar alcohol. Inthese examples, statistical analysis is provided for comparing theresults of feeding the lactating sows the control feed in combinationwith sugar alcohol versus the results of feeding the lactating sows thecontrol feed in the absence of sugar alcohol. Each lactating sow andeach piglet included in these examples received routine care andmanagement consistent with appropriate recommendations in the Guide forthe Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research andTeaching (1st edition, March 1988).

In each of the Examples provided below, each piglet was weighed two daysafter birth, fourteen days after birth, and again at weaning. All datathat is provided in Tables 4-9 below for the lactating sows is basedupon individual data for each lactating sow, then-present, as leastsquare means of the particular data over all lactating sows present inthe test at the time the particular data was recorded. All data that isprovided in Tables 4-9 below for the piglets is based upon data for eachlitter of piglets, then-present, as least square means of the particulardata over all piglets of the litter present in the test at the time theparticular data was recorded. Data for parameters presented in Tables4-9 was analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) statisticalprocedure of SAS™ statistical analysis software for a randomizedcomplete block design that included both the particular feed regimen andthe week of the test period in the model statement. The SAS™ statisticalanalysis software is available from SAS Institute, Inc. of Cary, N.C.Additionally, all data was analyzed to determine the mean of the datafor each variable under consideration during the collection period forthe particular data.

Additionally, the PDiff function of the GLM statistical procedure wasused to characterize the mean values of the data by providing forcomparisons between mean data values for the piglets or lactating sowsof different treatments for particular test parameters or variables. Theprobability value P is a measure of the statistical probability that thediffering parameter values derived from (1) lactating sows fed sugaralcohol versus (2) lactating sows not fed any sugar alcohol may beexplained by the difference between receiving sugar alcohol and notreceiving sugar alcohol.

A P value of 0.05 means that five times out of 100 the results can beexplained by factors other than differences between the differenttreatments. Likewise, a P value of 0.77 means that 77 times out of 100,the difference in value between the control group fed only the controlfeed and the group fed the control feed and sugar alcohol may beexplained by factors other than the differing feeding regimens. Forpurposes of comparing data in this document, P values of 0.10, or lower,are considered to be statistically significant. Thus, where a P value of0.10 or less is returned for a particular variable, it is assumed thediffering results are fully explained by the test regimen, i.e.: thepresence or lack of the sugar alcohol in the diet of the particularlactating sow(s).

Also, many of Tables 4-9 include a coefficient of variation for data ina particular row. A coefficient of variation is simply the standarddeviation of a particular variable that is divided by the mean of thevariable and then multiplied by 100. Because variances and standarddeviations are used to measure error, and because these values forvariances and standard deviations are sensitive to the absolute scale ofthe variable, coefficients of variations are provided, sincecoefficients of variation remove the influence of the overall magnitudeof the data.

In each of the Examples below, the control feed had the composition setforth in Table 1 below and the nutrient composition set forth in Table 2below:

TABLE 1 Control Diet Ingredient Composition Ingredient Concentration^(a)(weight percent) Ground Corn 63.95 High Protein Soybean Meal 28.65LitterMax ® HML Premix 5.00 Choice White Grease 2.30 Micro-Aid Premix0.10 ^(a)Based on the total weight of the Control Diet

TABLE 2 Control Diet Nutrient Composition Nutritional Parameters ValueMetabolizable Energy (Kcal/lb) 1525 Crude Fat (weight percent)^(a) 2.798Crude Protein (weight percent)^(a) 18.8 Lysine (weight percent)^(a) 1.00Methionine (weight percent)^(a) 0.306 Cysteine + Methionine (weightpercent)^(a) 0.632 Threonine (weight percent)^(a) 0.734 Tryptophan(weight percent)^(a) 0.232 Valine (weight percent)^(a) 0.887 Calcium(weight percent)^(a) 1.000 Phosphorus (weight percent)^(a) 0.800^(a)Based on the total weight of the Control DietThe lactating sows were held in individual crates in a conventionalfarrowing facility and were individually fed. Each crate had wireflooring, a nipple water drinker, and a feeder. The sows in each cratehad ad libitum access to water at all times.

For each individual lactating sow, the amount of the control feedconsumed by the individual lactating sow was determined and recordedonce daily by subtracting the weight of the control feed remaining atthe end of the last daily feeding in the crate of the individuallactating sow from the total weight of control feed provided to theindividual lactating sow during the three (morning, noon, afternoon)individual daily feed additions to the feed container of the individuallactating sow.

Example 1

In this example, sixty-two (62) lactating sows were subjected to one ofthree different feeding trials that each began shortly (within 48 hours)after the lactating sows gave birth to piglets (i.e.: shortly afterfarrowing) and extended to the day the different piglets were weanedfrom the respective sows. The purpose of this example was to evaluatethe effect of feeding lactating sows varying amounts of sugar alcohol,or no sugar alcohol, on subsequent piglet litter performance parameters,such as mortality prior to weaning and litter weight gain during thepre-weaning period. Sorbitol was used as the sugar alcohol in thisexample.

Immediately after farrowing, twenty sows were randomly assigned to theControl, twenty-one sows were randomly assigned to Trial A, andtwenty-one sows were randomly assigned to Trial B. Sow assignment didtake into account parity (number of litters per sow) to artificiallybalance parity across the Control, Trial A, and Trial B. The differentsows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B had parities ranging from oneto more than two. Additionally, litter size was equalized between thedifferent sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B within forty-eighthours after farrowing to assure that all sows, whether assigned to theControl, Trial A or Trial B, had the same, or about the same, number ofnursing piglets. The reason for waiting forty-eight hours beforecross-fostering in this fashion was to assure each piglet receivedcolostrum from their original dam.

In the Control, each of the twenty lactating sows were fed the controlfeed throughout the lactation period, where the control feed did notinclude any sugar alcohol. In Trial A, each of the lactating sowsreceived the control feed plus about twenty-six grams of sorbitol perday. In Trial B, each of the lactating sows received the control feedplus about fifty-two grams of sorbitol per day.

The lactating sows of both Trial A and Trial B received the same dailyamount of control feed that was fed to the lactating sows of the Controlwith the exception that two pounds of the control feed provided daily tothe lactating sows of both Trial A and Trial B were replaced with twopounds of a sorbitol-coated control feed (hereinafter referred to as“top-dressed control feed”). To create the top-dressed control feed,liquid sorbitol was heated to a temperature ranging from about 100° F.and about 120° F. The heated liquid sorbitol was then sprayed over abatch of about three hundred to four hundred pounds of the control feedand thoroughly mixed to form the top-dressed control feed. Followingmixing, the top-dressed control feed was divided and separately baggedin two pound increments.

An appropriate ratio of the liquid sorbitol to the control feed wasselected for the top-dressed control feed destined for the Trial Alactating sows to assure that each two pound allotment of the controlfeed destined for the Trial A lactating sows included about twenty-sixgrams of sorbitol. Likewise, an appropriate ratio of the liquid sorbitolto the control feed was selected for the top-dressed control feeddestined for the Trial B lactating sows to assure that each two poundallotment of the top-dressed control feed destined for the Trial Blactating sows included about fifty-two grams of sorbitol.

During the feeding trial of this example, the top dressed control feedwas applied three times daily to the balance of the control feed beingprovided individually at that feeding to the individual lactating sowsof Trial A and Trial B. Approximately one-third of the top-dressedcontrol feed was provided to the sows in the morning feeding,approximately one-third of the top dressed control feed was provided tothe lactating sows in the noon feeding, and the remaining approximateone-third of the top-dressed control feed was provided to the sows inthe afternoon feeding. The twenty-one sows of Trial A each received atotal of about two pounds of the top-dressed control feed containingabout 26 grams of sorbitol per day. The twenty-one sows of Trial B eachreceived a total of about two pounds of the top-dressed control feedcontaining about 52 grams of sorbitol per day.

All sixty-two lactating sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B wereoffered a maximum of four (4) pounds of the control feed during thefirst twenty-four (24) hours after farrowing, a maximum of eight (8)pounds of the control feed during the second day (24 hours to 48 hours)after farrowing, and a maximum of twelve (12) pounds of the control feedduring the third day (48 hours to 72 hours) after farrowing to mimictypical feeding patters of lactating sows during the first seventy-twohours post-farrowing and minimize waste of the control feed. Thereafter,subsequent to the third day after farrowing, the sows were allowed adlibitum access to the control feed until the piglets were weaned fromthe lactating sows. Table 3 provides a scheduling summary for the trialdiets of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B.

TABLE 3 Trial Diet Schedule Sorbitol (grams Time Period Diet NameControl Feed per day) First 24 hours post Control offered 4 pounds daily0 farrowing Trial A offered 4 pounds daily^(a) 26 Trial B offered 4pounds daily^(b) 52 24 hours to 48 hours Control offered 8 pounds daily0 post farrowing Trial A offered 8 pounds daily^(a) 26 Trial B offered 8pounds daily^(b) 52 48 hours to 72 hours Control offered 12 pounds daily0 post farrowing Trial A offered 12 pounds daily^(a) 26 Trial B offered12 pounds daily^(b) 52 >72 hours Control ad libitum 0 post farrowingTrial A ad libitum^(a) 26 Trial B ad libitum^(b) 52 ^(a)About two poundsof the top-dressed control feed including about 26 grams of sorbitolwere provided daily in place of about two pounds of the untreatedcontrol feed. ^(b)About two pounds of the top-dressed control feedincluding about 52 grams of sorbitol were provided daily in place ofabout two pounds of the untreated control feed.The trial of this example began at farrowing when the lactating sowswere fed in accordance with the schedule of Table 3. However, as notedabove, the piglets were not removed from their birth sow until aboutforty-eight hours of birth to allow each piglet to receive colostrumfrom its birth sow. Thereafter, about forty-eight hours after birth (onday two after farrowing), the litters were equalized between thedifferent sows, and the number of live nursing piglets per litter wascounted and recorded.

The number of live piglets per litter was also counted and recordedfourteen days after farrowing and again at weaning. The average numbersof live piglets in the Control, Trial A, and Trial B were calculated byseparately adding together the number of piglets per litter in theControl, in Trial A, and in Trial B and thereafter dividing that numberof total piglets per trial (Control, Trial A, or Trial B) by the numberof nursing sows in that particular trial (Control, Trial A, or Trial B).The average number of piglets per litter for each trial (Control, TrialA, or Trial B) was calculated two days after farrowing, fourteen daysafter farrowing, and again at weaning. The average numbers of pigletsper litter at these measurement times are listed in Table 4 below forthe Control, Trial A, and Trial B.

Litter mortality rates for the Control, Trial A, Trial B were separatelycalculated by comparing the number of piglets alive on day twopost-farrowing with the number of piglets alive at day fourteenpost-farrowing, with the results shown in Table 4 below as a percentagemortality during the period spanning from day two post-farrowing to dayfourteen post-farrowing. Litter mortality rates for the Control, TrialA, Trial B were also separately calculated by comparing the number ofpiglets alive on day fourteen post-farrowing with the number of pigletsalive on the day of weaning, with the results shown in Table 4 below asa percentage mortality during the period spanning from day fourteenpost-farrowing to the weaning day. Finally, litter mortality rates forthe Control, Trial A, Trial B were again separately calculated bycomparing the number of piglets alive on day two post-farrowing with thenumber of piglets alive on the day of weaning, with the results shown inTable 4 below as a percentage mortality during the period spanning fromday two post-farrowing to the day of weaning.

Additionally, the collective body weights of the piglets assigned toeach lactating sow of the three different trials were measured andrecorded on day two post-farrowing (about forty-eight hours afterfarrowing), on day fourteen post-farrowing (fourteen days afterfarrowing), and on the day the piglets were weaned. The mean body weightvalues for each individual piglet of the three different trials werederived for each piglet individually from the weight data recorded foreach piglet litter by dividing the collective litter weight determinedfor a particular litter by the total number of piglets then-present inthe litter to attain the mean individual piglet weights on day twopost-farrowing (about forty-eight hours after farrowing), on dayfourteen post-farrowing (fourteen days after farrowing), and on the daythe piglets were weaned.

The data of Table 4 illustrates the effects of the sugar alcoholfeedings of Trial A and Trial B, versus the absence of sugar alcoholfeedings in the Control, on litter performance (piglet mortality, litterlive weight, and mean individual piglet weight) for each of the threedifferent trials (Control, Trial A, and Trial B).

TABLE 4 Litter Performance (Parity ≧ 1) Trial Name Coefficient ParameterControl Trial A Trial B of Variation P-Value Number of Sows 20 21 21Mean Parity 2.40 2.90 2.75 56.9 0.55 Length of Lactation (Days) 21.2120.71 21.41 10.38 0.57 Litter Performance: Day 2 10.65 10.57 10.50 7.520.83 Number of Nursing Day 14 9.70 10.14 10.0 11.22 0.43 Piglets AtWeaning 9.51 9.95 10.03 11.44 0.2 Litter Performance: Day 1 to Day 148.86^(d) 3.99^(e) 4.61^(e) 135 0.10 Percentage Piglet Day 14 to weaning2.09^(d) 1.74^(d) 0.00^(e) 260 0.09 Mortality^(x) Day 1 to Weaning10.75^(b) 5.69^(c) 4.60^(c) 119.2 0.04 Litter Performance: Day 2 40.8043.29 41.17 21.05 0.62 Total Live Weight Day 14 96.99 107.85 104.3919.69 0.22 of Litter (pounds) At Weaning 137.59^(d) 147.53^(de)154.81^(e) 17.18 0.09 Litter Performance: Day 2 3.83 4.11 3.90 19.1 0.48Mean Weight of Day 14 10.03 10.59 10.39 15.2 0.53 Individual Piglets AtWeaning 14.53 14.80 15.55 13.75 0.26 (pounds) ^(bc)Numbers within thesame row with different single letter superscripts differ at aprobability value of P < 0.05. ^(de)Numbers within the same row withdifferent single letter superscripts differ at a probability value of P< 0.10. ^(x)Based on number of piglets present at start of measurementperiodThe litter performance data of Table 4 demonstrates the sugar alcohol,specifically sorbitol, dosages included in Trial A and Trial B causedthe health of the piglets of the Trial A litters and the Trial B littersto be improved, relative to the health of the piglets of the Controllitters. One illustration of the improved health is the observation thatthe Trial A piglet litters and the Trial B piglet litters each exhibitedlower mortality rates than the Control piglet litters, as measured overthe entire pre-weaning period (measured from day one post-farrowing toweaning) and as measured over portions of the pre-weaning period (suchas (1) when measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteenpost-farrowing and (2) when measured from day fourteen post-farrowing toweaning).

Another illustration of the improved health is the observation that theTrial A piglet litters and the Trial B piglet litters each exhibitedincreased total litter live weights as compared to the Control pigletlitters, as measured over the entire pre-weaning period (measured fromday one post-farrowing to weaning) and as measured over portions of thepre-weaning period (such as (1) when measured from day onepost-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing and (2) when measured fromday fourteen post-farrowing to weaning). Yet another illustration of theimproved health is the observation that the Trial A piglet litters andthe Trial B piglet litters each exhibited increased individual pigletmean weights versus the piglets of the Control litters, as measured overthe entire pre-weaning period (measured from day one post-farrowing toweaning) and as measured over portions of the pre-weaning period (suchas (I) when measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteenpost-farrowing and (2) when measured from day fourteen post-farrowing toweaning).

Specific examples about lower mortality rates that demonstrate thehealth improvements of the Trial A piglet litters versus the Controlpiglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugar alcohol,specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial A of this exampleresulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 3.99 percent for the Trial Apiglet litters from the 8.86 percent mortality rate of the Controlpiglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowing to dayfourteen post-farrowing. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included inTrial A of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to dropby 4.87 percentage points for the Trial A piglet litters versus thepiglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), asmeasured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing.Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of thisexample caused the piglet mortality to drop 54.97 percent{((8.86−3.99)÷8.86)×100%} for the Trial A piglet litters versus theControl piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowingto day fourteen post-farrowing.

Likewise, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included inTrial A of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 5.69percent for the Trial A piglet litters from the 10.75 percent mortalityrate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day onepost-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included inTrial A of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to dropby 5.06 percentage points for the Trial A piglet litters versus thepiglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), asmeasured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, thesugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of this example caused thepiglet mortality to drop 47.07 percent {((10.75−5.69)÷10.75)×100%} forthe Trial A piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05),as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

Specific examples about lower mortality rates that demonstrate thehealth improvements of the Trial B piglet litters versus the Controlpiglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugar alcohol,specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial B of this exampleresulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 4.61 percent for the Trial Bpiglet litters from the 8.86 percent mortality rate of the Controlpiglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowing to dayfourteen post-farrowing. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included inTrial B of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to dropby 4.25 percentage points for the Trial B piglet litters versus thepiglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), asmeasured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing.Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of thisexample caused the piglet mortality to drop 47.97 percent{((8.86−4.61)÷8.86)×100%} for the Trial B piglet litters versus theControl piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from day one post-farrowingto day fourteen post-farrowing.

Next, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included inTrial B of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 0.00percent for the Trial B piglet litters from the 2.09 percent mortalityrate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measured from dayfourteen post-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosageincluded in Trial B of this example caused the piglet mortalitypercentage to drop by 2.09 percentage points for the Trial B pigletlitters versus the piglet mortality percentage of the Control pigletlitters (P<0.10), as measured from day fourteen post-farrowing toweaning. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial Bof this example caused the piglet mortality to drop 100 percent{((2.09−0.00)÷2.09)×100%} for the Trial B piglet litters versus theControl piglet litters (P<0. 10), as measured from day fourteenpost-farrowing to weaning.

Likewise, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included inTrial B of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 4.60percent for the Trial B piglet litters from the 10.75 percent mortalityrate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day onepost-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included inTrial B of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to dropby 6.15 percentage points for the Trial B piglet litters versus thepiglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), asmeasured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, thesugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused thepiglet mortality to drop 57.21 percent {((10.75−4.60)÷10.75)×100%} forthe Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05),as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

Specific examples concerning increased total litter live weights thatfurther demonstrate the health improvements of the Trial B pigletlitters versus the Control piglet litters are also illustrative. Forexample, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosage included inTrial B of this example resulted in a total litter live weight increaseto 154.81 pounds for the Trial B piglet litters versus the 137.59 poundlitter live weight for the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), as measuredfrom day one post-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosageincluded in Trial B of this example caused the total litter live weightto increase by 17.22 pounds for the Trial B piglet litters versus thetotal litter live weight of the Control piglet litters (P<0.10), asmeasured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, thesugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused thetotal litter live weight to increase about 12.52 percent{((154.81−137.59)÷137.59)×100%} for the Trial B piglet litters versusthe Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day onepost-farrowing to weaning.

In another aspect of the present invention, the mean daily feed intakefor the lactating sows of the Control, Trial A and Trial B wasdetermined for various time periods during the pre-weaning period, suchas (1) day one post-farrowing through day seven post-farrowing, (2) dayeight post-farrowing through day fourteen post-farrowing, (3) day onepost-farrowing through day fourteen post-farrowing, (4) day onepost-farrowing through day eighteen post-farrowing, and (5) day onepost-farrowing through the day of piglet weaning. Each sow of theControl, Trial A and Trial B nursed piglets of the assigned litter untilat least day eighteen post-farrowing. These mean daily feed intakevalues are presented in Table 5 below and were derived from the averagedaily feed intake data recorded for each lactating sow. Table 5demonstrates the impact of the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol,dosages employed in Trial A and in Trial B, as compared to the Controlthat was free of sugar alcohol, on sow feed intake during thepre-weaning period for the sows assigned to the Control, Trial A, andTrial B.

TABLE 5 Sow Performance - Feed Intake (Parity ≧ 1) Trial NameCoefficient of Parameter Control Trial A Trial B Variation P-ValueNumber of Sows 20 21 21 Mean Parity 2.40 2.90 2.75 56.9 0.55 Length ofLactation (Days) 21.21 20.71 21.41 10.38 0.57 Sow Day 1 thru Day 7 9.399.77 8.65 27.0 0.34 Feed Day 8 thru Day 14 13.84 13.92 13.11 24.5 0.68Intake Day 1 thru Day 14 11.61 11.84 10.87 24.4 0.50 (pounds) Day 1 thruDay 18 12.28 12.45 11.68 22.5 0.60 Day 1 thru Weaning 12.80 12.91 12.2219.9 0.63The inventors of the present invention anticipated that sows of Trial Aand Trial B that were fed the sugar alcohol dosages would exhibit asignificant increase in feed intake during the pre-weaning period, ascompared to the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol.Surprisingly, however, as demonstrated by the data of Table 5, thelactating sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcoholdosages did not experience any significant increase in feed intakeduring the pre-weaning period, as compared to the lactating sows of theControl that were not fed any sugar alcohol.

Indeed, the results of Table 5 demonstrate that feed intake actuallydecreased by about 0.70 pounds for the Trial B sows, as compared to theControl sow feed intake, over each of the measurement periods of thepre-weaning period. Nonetheless, this decrease in feed intake for theTrial B sows did not have a negative impact upon the mortality rates ofthe litters of the sows in Trial B, upon the overall litter live weightsof the Trial B litter, or upon the mean piglet weight of the individualpiglets of the Trial B litters, as compared to the mortality rates ofthe litters of the sows in the Control, the overall litter live weightsof the Control litters, or the mean piglet weight of the individualpiglets of the Control litters. (See Table 4 above and relateddiscussion). Similar comments apply to the sows of Trial A of thisexample that generally showed a slight, insignificant feed intake versusthe sows of the Control. These slight variations in feed intake of theTrial A sows and the Trial B sows, versus the feed intake of the Controlsows, nevertheless correspond with lower mortality rates and increasedlive weights for the Trial A litters and the Trial B litters, ascompared to the Control litters, and suggest the sows of Trial A andTrial B that were fed sugar alcohol produced milk more efficiently thanthe Control sows and therefore needed fewer calories to producebeneficial amounts of milk with beneficial nutritional composition, ascompared to the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol.

In another aspect of this example, backfat thickness for the Controlsows, the Trial A sows, and the Trial B sows was individually measuredand recorded on day one post-farrowing (within twelve hours offarrowing), on day fourteen post-farrowing), and on the day the pigletswere weaned from the various lactating sows. Backfat thicknesses weremeasured using a Linear Array Ultrasound unit obtained from E. I.Medical of Loveland, Colo. in accordance with the backfat measurementinstructions provided with the Linear Array Ultrasound unit. Using thebackfat thickness measurements for the individual Control sows, theindividual Trial A sows, and the individual Trial B sows, the meanbackfat thickness for the sows of the Control, for the sows of Trial A,and for the sows of Trial B were then calculated and recorded as of dayone post-farrowing (within twelve hours of farrowing), on day fourteenpost-farrowing), and on the day the piglets were weaned from the variouslactating sows. The results of these mean backfat thicknessdeterminations for the sows of the Control, for the sows of Trial A, andfor the sows of Trial B are tabulated in Table 6.

In this example, covariance analysis was used to increase the precisionof the backfat measurements. Covariance analysis entails removing, byregression analysis, certain recognized treatment effects that cannot beor have not been effectively controlled by the experimental design. Forexample, if weight is correlated with weight gain, a portion of theexperimental error for weight gain may be the result of differences ininitial weight. Because the sows assigned to any group (such as theControl, Trial A, and Trial B) will typically vary in initial weight(and thus typically will vary in initial backfat thickness), thisvariation in initial backfat thickness was taken into account to helpimprove the accuracy of the results for changes in backfat thickness. Tomake each group (such as the Control, Trial A, and Trial B) of sows morecomparable, backfat measurements were adjusted, via regression analysis,to more accurately estimate what the backfat measurements would havebeen if all the sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial B had had thesame backfat thickness at the start of the pre-weaning period of thisexample (i.e. on day one post-farrowing). Thus, the changes in meanbackfat thickness for the sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial Bprovided in Table 6 below take into account the described covarianceanalysis that calculates and eliminates (accounts for) variations ofinitial sow backfat thicknesses. Again, Table 6 shows the impact of thesugar alcohol fed to the sows of Trial A and Trial B versus the sows ofthe Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol on changes in meanbackfat thickness for the sows of the Control, Trial A, and Trial Bduring the pre-weaning period.

TABLE 6 Sow Performance - Backfat Changes (Parity ≧ 1) Trial NameCoefficient Parameter Control Trial A Trial B of Variation P-ValueNumber of Sows 20 21 21 Mean Parity 2.40 2.90 2.75 56.9 0.55 Length ofLactation 21.21 20.71 21.41 10.38 0.57 (Days) Sow Day One 0.58 0.70 0.610.02 Backfat Post- (Inches) farrowing^(a) Adj. Day 0.598 0.598 0.598 OnePost- farrowing^(a) Weaning^(b) 0.584 0.580 0.567 0.95 Change^(b) −0.014−0.0176 −0.031 0.95 ^(a)Post-farrowing backfat measurements taken about12 hours after farrowing ^(b)Post farrowing backfat was used as acovariance.Though not necessarily desirable, the inventors of the present inventionexpected the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcoholdosages would exhibit a significant decrease in backfat during thepre-weaning period, as compared to the sows of the Control that were notfed any sugar alcohol. Surprisingly, however, as demonstrated by thedata of Table 6, the lactating sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fedthe sugar alcohol dosages did not experience any significant backfatdecrease during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the lactatingsows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol. Indeed, theresults presented in Table 6 demonstrate the sows of Trial A and Trial Bthat were fed sugar alcohol lost only an insignificant amount of backfatbetween day one post-farrowing and weaning, as compared to the Controlsows not fed any sugar alcohol. These backfat maintenance results ofTable 6 further suggest the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fedsugar alcohol produced milk more efficiently than the Control sows andtherefore needed fewer calories to produce beneficial amounts of milkwith beneficial nutritional composition, as compared to the sows of theControl that were not fed any sugar alcohol.

Example 2

In this example, the data from Example 1 was analyzed to remove dataattributable to sows with a parity of only one. Parity refers to thenumber of litters a sow has previously given birth to during its life.Gilts or first-parity sows typically consume approximately fifteen totwenty percent less feed during lactation and also typically produceless milk than sows with parities greater than one. The litters ofparity one sows also tend to have lower weaning weights and more healthproblems than the litters of sows with parities greater than one. Thepurpose of looking at the Example 1 data, as re-analyzed to remove theeffect of parity one data, is to determine the influence of naturaldifferences in feed intake and litter performance of parity one sows onthe data presented in Example 1 above. Removing the data contributed bythe seventeen parity one sows in Example 1, left the Control withfourteen sows of parity two or higher, left Trial A with sixteen sows ofparity two or higher, and left Trial B with sixteen sows of parity twoor higher. The remaining data contributed by the forty-five parity twoor higher sows distributed between the Control, Trial A, and Trial B wasanalyzed and is presented as Example 2.

The data of Table 7 below illustrates the effects of the sugar alcoholfeedings of Trial A and Trial B, versus the absence of sugar alcoholfeedings in the Control, on litter performance (piglet mortality, litterlive weight, and mean individual piglet weight) for each of the threedifferent trials (Control, Trial A, and Trial B).

TABLE 7 Litter Performance (Parity ≧ 2) Trial Name Coefficient ParameterControl Trial A Trial B of Variation P-Value Number of Sows 14 16 15Mean Parity 3.02 3.53 3.48 37.7 0.49 Length of Lactation (Days) 20.5320.16 20.75 8.66 0.64 Litter Performance: Day 2 10.70 10.51 10.62 5.860.71 Number of Nursing Day 14 9.55 10.14 10.02 9.43 0.21 Piglets AtWeaning 9.34 10.01 10.02 10.12 0.12 Litter Performance: Day 1 to Day 1410.73^(b) 3.52^(c) 5.68^(c) 106.9 0.02 Percentage Piglet Day 14 toweaning 2.33 1.23 0.00 285.7 0.17 Mortality^(x) Day 1 to Weaning12.77^(b) 4.69^(c) 5.71^(c) 103.1 0.01 Litter Performance: Day 2 42.6043.37 44.48 19.56 0.83 Total Live Weight Day 14 98.77 109.76 109.2518.47 0.24 of Litter (pounds) At Weaning 136.59^(b) 150.42^(bc)159.86^(c) 16.50 0.04 Litter Performance: Day 2 3.97 4.14 4.18 18.400.74 Mean Weight of Day 14 10.38 10.82 10.87 14.94 0.66 IndividualPiglets At Weaning 14.67 15.02 16.03 13.73 0.19 (pounds) ^(bc)Numberswithin the same row with different single letter superscripts differ ata probability value of P < 0.05. ^(x)Based on number of piglets presentat start of measurement periodThe litter performance data of Table 7 demonstrates the sugar alcohol,specifically sorbitol, dosages included in Trial A and Trial B causedthe health of the piglets of the Trial A litters and the Trial B littersto be improved, relative to the health of the piglets of the Controllitters. One illustration of the improved health is the observation thatthe Trial A piglet litters and the Trial B piglet litters each exhibitedlower mortality rates than the Control piglet litters, as measured overthe entire pre-weaning period (measured from day one post-farrowing toweaning) and as measured over portions of the pre-weaning period (suchas (1) when measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteenpost-farrowing and (2) when measured from day fourteen post-farrowing toweaning).

Another illustration of the improved health is the observation that theTrial A piglet litters and the Trial B piglet litters each exhibitedincreased total litter live weights as compared to the Control pigletlitters, as measured over the entire pre-weaning period (measured fromday one post-farrowing to weaning) and as measured over portions of thepre-weaning period (such as (1) when measured from day onepost-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing and (2) when measured fromday fourteen post-farrowing to weaning). Yet another illustration of theimproved health is the observation that the Trial A piglet litters andthe Trial B piglet litters each exhibited increased individual pigletmean weights versus the piglets of the Control litters, as measured overthe entire pre-weaning period (measured from day one post-farrowing toweaning) and as measured over portions of the pre-weaning period (suchas (I) when measured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteenpost-farrowing and (2) when measured from day fourteen post-farrowing toweaning).

Specific examples about lower mortality rates that demonstrate thehealth improvements of the Trial A piglet litters versus the Controlpiglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugar alcohol,specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial A of this exampleresulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 3.52 percent for the Trial Apiglet litters from the 10.73 percent mortality rate of the Controlpiglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to dayfourteen post-farrowing. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included inTrial A of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to dropby 7.21 percentage points for the Trial A piglet litters versus thepiglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), asmeasured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing.Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of thisexample caused the piglet mortality to drop 67.20 percent{((10.73−3.52)÷10.73)×100%} for the Trial A piglet litters versus theControl piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowingto day fourteen post-farrowing.

Likewise, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included inTrial A of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 4.69percent for the Trial A piglet litters from the 12.77 percent mortalityrate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day onepost-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included inTrial A of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to dropby 8.08 percentage points for the Trial A piglet litters versus thepiglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), asmeasured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, thesugar alcohol dosage included in Trial A of this example caused thepiglet mortality to drop 63.27 percent {((12.77−4.69)÷12.77)×100%} forthe Trial A piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05),as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

Specific examples about lower mortality rates that demonstrate thehealth improvements of the Trial B piglet litters versus the Controlpiglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugar alcohol,specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial B of this exampleresulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 5.68 percent for the Trial Bpiglet litters from the 10.73 percent mortality rate of the Controlpiglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing to dayfourteen post-farrowing. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included inTrial B of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to dropby 5.05 percentage points for the Trial B piglet litters versus thepiglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), asmeasured from day one post-farrowing to day fourteen post-farrowing.Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of thisexample caused the piglet mortality to drop 47.06 percent{((10.73−5.68)÷10.73)×100%} for the Trial B piglet litters versus theControl piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowingto day fourteen post-farrowing.

Likewise, the sugar alcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages included inTrial B of this example resulted in a piglet mortality decrease to 5.71percent for the Trial B piglet litters from the 12.77 percent mortalityrate of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day onepost-farrowing to weaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included inTrial B of this example caused the piglet mortality percentage to dropby 7.06 percentage points for the Trial B piglet litters versus thepiglet mortality percentage of the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), asmeasured from day one post-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, thesugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of this example caused thepiglet mortality to drop 55.29 percent {((12.77−5.71)÷12.77)×100%} forthe Trial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05),as measured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

When comparing the parity≧one data of Table 4 from Example 1 with theparity≧two data of Table 7 from this example, one observation is thatthe Trial A percentage rate of litter mortality decreases, versus theControl, were noticeably larger for the parity≧two data versus theparity≧one data. Similar comments do not apply to the Trial B resultswhere the percentage rate of litter mortality decreases, versus theControl, were quite similar for the parity≧two data versus theparity≧one data. This observation may suggest, at least for purposes ofdecreasing mortality in litters, the lower 26 gram per day dosage ofsugar alcohol, such as sorbitol, has more beneficial impact than thehigher 52 gram per day dosage of sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol.

Another observation when comparing the parity≧one data of Table 4 fromExample 1 with the parity≧two data of Table 7 from this example is thatthe Trial A percentage point declines in litter mortality, versus theControl, were noticeably larger for the parity≧two data versus theparity≧one data. Similar comments also apply to the Trial B results,though the percentage point declines of litter mortality, versus theControl, were less dramatic for the Trial B results than for the Trial Aresults when comparing the parity≧two data versus the parity≧one data.This observation supports the prior suggestion, at least for purposes ofdecreasing mortality in litters, that the lower 26 gram per day dosageof sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol, has more beneficial impact than thehigher 52 gram per day dosage of sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol.

An additional observation when comparing the parity≧one data of Table 4from Example 1 with the parity≧two data of Table 7 from this example isthat the Trial A litter mortality rate decreases to a smaller endingpercentage for the parity≧two data versus the parity≧one data. Similarcomments do not apply to the Trial B results, since the Trial B littermortality rate, while still decreasing versus the litter mortality rateof the Control, actually decreases to a larger ending percentage for theparity≧two data versus the parity≧one data. This observation furthersupports the prior suggestion, at least for purposes of decreasingmortality in litters, that the lower 26 gram per day dosage of sugaralcohol, such as sorbitol, has more beneficial impact than the higher 52gram per day dosage of sugar alcohol, such as sorbitol.

Specific examples about increased total litter live weights that furtherdemonstrate the health improvements of the Trial B piglet litters versusthe Control piglet litters are also illustrative. For example, the sugaralcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosage included in Trial B of thisexample resulted in a total litter live weight increase to 159.86 poundsfor the Trial B piglet litters from the 136.59 pounds for the Controlpiglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day one post-farrowing toweaning. Thus, the sugar alcohol dosage included in Trial B of thisexample caused the total litter live weight to increase by 23.27 poundsfor the Trial B piglet litters versus the total litter live weight ofthe Control piglet litters (P<0.05), as measured from day onepost-farrowing to weaning. Otherwise stated, the sugar alcohol dosageincluded in Trial B of this example caused the total litter live weightto increase about 17.04percent {((159.86−136.59)÷136.59)×100%} for theTrial B piglet litters versus the Control piglet litters (P<0.05), asmeasured from day one post-farrowing to weaning.

When comparing the parity≧one data of Table 4 from Example 1 with theparity≧two data of Table 7 from this example, one observation is thatthe Trial B litter live weight gain percentage, versus the Control, werenoticeably larger for the parity≧two data versus the parity≧one data. Nomeaningful comparisons are available for the Trial A parity≧two dataversus the Trial A parity≧1 one data since this data has no statisticalsignificance relative to either the Control data or the Trial B data.Nonetheless, the available parity≧two data versus the parity≧one datacomparison discussed above for Trial B suggests that litters ofparity≧two that are nursed from sows fed sugar alcohol, such assorbitol, in accordance with the present invention gain weight morequickly than litters of parity≧one that are nursed from sows fed sugaralcohol, such as sorbitol, in accordance with the present invention.

It is generally known that parity one sows typically consume less feedper day during lactation as compared to older sows. This is primarilydue to the stress of farrowing a first litter. However, Table 5 shows anumeric decrease in feed intake for sows fed 52 grams of sorbitol perday. Although this decrease was not significant, concern existed overwhether this decrease was related to parity one sows or common to allsows. Data from Table 5 was analyzed in the absence of feed intake datafrom parity one sows to form Table 8.

In another aspect of the present invention, mean daily feed intakevalues for the lactating sows (parity≧two) of the Control, Trial A, andTrial B were derived from the Table 5 data of Example 1 for various timeperiods during the pre-weaning period, such as (1) day onepost-farrowing through day seven post-farrowing, (2) day eightpost-farrowing through day fourteen post-farrowing, (3) day onepost-farrowing through day fourteen post-farrowing, (4) day onepost-farrowing through day eighteen post-farrowing, and (5) day onepost-farrowing through the day of piglet weaning and are presented inTable 8 below. The Table 8 data demonstrates the impact of the sugaralcohol, specifically sorbitol, dosages employed in Trial A and in TrialB, as compared to the Control that was free of sugar alcohol, on sowfeed intake during the pre-weaning period for the sows (parity≧two)assigned to the Control, Trial A, and Trial B.

TABLE 8 Sow Performance - Feed Intake (Parity ≧ 2) Trial NameCoefficient of Parameter Control Trial A Trial B Variation P-ValueNumber of Sows 14 16 15 Mean Parity 3.02 3.53 3.48 37.7 0.49 Length ofLactation (Days) 20.53 20.16 20.75 8.66 0.64 Sow Day 1 thru Day 7 9.9810.67 10.00 16.14 0.42 Feed Day 8 thru Day 14 14.92 14.87 14.74 17.270.98 Intake Day 1 thru Day 14 12.45 12.77 12.37 15.87 0.83 (pounds) Day1 thru Day 18 13.09 13.31 13.07 15.18 0.93 Day 1 thru Weaning 13.4913.70 13.55 13.88 0.95The inventors of the present invention, as previously discussed inExample 1, anticipated that sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fedthe sugar alcohol dosages would exhibit a significant feed intakeincrease during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the sows of theControl that were not fed any sugar alcohol. Surprisingly, however, asdemonstrated by the data of Table 8, the lactating sows of Trial A andTrial B that were fed the sugar alcohol dosages did not experience anysignificant increase in feed intake during the pre-weaning period, ascompared to the lactating sows of the Control that were not fed anysugar alcohol. Thus, despite excluding the parity one sow data from thedata of Table 8, the natural tendency of parity one sows to consume lessfeed as compared to parity≧two sows did not cause any significantchanges in the Table 8 results of this example versus the Table 5results of Example 1.

Indeed, the results of Table 8 demonstrate that feed intake actuallydecreased by a very small amount for the Trial B sows or stayedapproximately the same, as compared to the Control sow feed intake, overthe different measurement periods of the pre-weaning period.Nonetheless, this decreased or similar feed intake for the Trial B sowsof parity≧two did not have a negative impact upon the mortality rates ofthe litters of the sows in Trial B, upon the overall litter live weightsof the Trial B litters, or upon the mean piglet weight of the individualpiglets of the Trial B litters, as compared to the mortality rates ofthe litters of the sows in the Control, the overall litter live weightsof the Control litters, or the mean piglet weight of the individualpiglets of the Control litters. (See Table 7 above and relateddiscussion). Similar comments apply to the sows of Trial A of thisexample that generally showed a slight, insignificant feed intake versusthe sows of the Control. These slight variations in feed intake of theTrial A sows and the Trial B sows, versus the feed intake of the Controlsows, nevertheless correspond with lower mortality rates and increasedweights for the Trial A litters and the Trial B litters, as compared tothe Control litters, and suggest the sows of Trial A and Trial B thatwere fed sugar alcohol produced milk more efficiently than the Controlsows and therefore needed fewer calories to produce beneficial amountsof milk with beneficial nutritional composition, as compared to the sowsof the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol.

In another aspect of this example, the backfat thickness data of Table 6in Example 1 for the Control sows, the Trial A sows, and the Trial Bsows was re-analyzed to removed data attributable to sows with a parityof one. The results of these mean backfat thickness determinations forthe sows (parity≧two) of the Control, for the sows of Trial A, and forthe sows of Trial B sows are tabulated in Table 9 below.

In this data of Table 9, covariance analysis was again employed, asdescribed with respect to the data of Table 6 in Example 1, to increasethe precision of the backfat measurements. Thus, the changes in meanbackfat thickness for the sows (parity≧two) of the Control, Trial A, andTrial B provided in Table 9 below take into account the describedcovariance analysis that calculates and eliminates (accounts for)variations of initial sow backfat thicknesses that are attributable todifferences in initial sow weights. Again, the data of Table 9 show theimpact of the sugar alcohol fed to the sows (parity≧two) of Trial A andTrial B versus the sows (parity≧two) of the Control that were not fedany sugar alcohol on changes in mean backfat thickness for the sows ofthe Control, Trial A, and Trial B during the pre-weaning period.

TABLE 9 Sow Performance - Backfat Changes (Parity ≧ 2) Trial NameCoefficient Parameter Control Trial A Trial B of Variation P-ValueNumber of Sows 14 16 15 Mean Parity 3.02 3.53 3.48 37.7 0.49 Length ofLactation 20.53 20.16 20.75 8.66 0.64 (Days) Sow Day One 0.557 0.6850.597 23.5 0.05 Backfat Post- (Inches) farrowing^(a) Adj. day 0.6160.616 0.616 one Post- farrowing^(a) Weaning^(b) 0.598 0.577 0.593 18.670.87 Change^(b) −0.018 −0.039 −0.024 −362 0.87 ^(a)Post-farrowingbackfat measurements taken about 12 hours after farrowing ^(b)Postfarrowing backfat was used as a covariance.Though not necessarily desirable, the inventors of the present inventionexpected the sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fed the sugar alcoholdosages would exhibit a significant decrease in backfat during thepre-weaning period, as compared to the sows of the Control that were notfed any sugar alcohol. Surprisingly, however, as demonstrated by thedata of Table 9, the lactating sows of Trial A and Trial B that were fedthe sugar alcohol dosages did not experience any significant backfatdecrease during the pre-weaning period, as compared to the lactatingsows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol. This resultfrom the Table 9 data for the sows (parity≧two) does not differ in anysignificant way from the result of the Table 6 data for the sows(parity≧one), so parity appears to play no significant role in thequantification of backfat changes.

Indeed, the results presented in Table 9 demonstrate the sows of Trial Aand Trial B that were fed sugar alcohol lost only an insignificantamount of backfat between day one post-farrowing and weaning, ascompared to the Control sows not fed any sugar alcohol. These backfatmaintenance results of Table 9 further suggest the sows of Trial A andTrial B that were fed sugar alcohol produced milk more efficiently thanthe Control sows and therefore needed fewer calories to producebeneficial amounts of milk with beneficial nutritional composition, ascompared to the sows of the Control that were not fed any sugar alcohol.

Although the present invention has been described with reference topreferred embodiments, workers skilled in the art will recognize thatchanges may be made in form and detail without departing from the spiritand scope of the invention.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A method of decreasing the mortality rateof a group of piglets nursing from a lactating sow during a pre-weaningperiod, the method comprising: feeding the lactating sow sugar alcoholduring the pre-weaning period, the sugar alcohol comprising sorbitol andthe lactating sow ingesting from about twenty-five grams of sugaralcohol per day to about fifty-two grams of sugar alcohol per day; andfeeding the lactating sow an animal feed during the pre-weaning period,the amount of the animal feed and the amount of the sugar alcohol fed tothe lactating sow effective to decrease the mortality rate of the groupof piglets.
 2. A method of feeding a first lactating sow, a first groupof piglets nursing from the first lactating sow during a pre-weaningperiod, the method comprising: feeding the first lactating sow aneffective amount of an animal feed during the pre-weaning period; andfeeding the first lactating sow an effective amount of a sugar alcoholduring the pre-weaning period, the effective amount of sugar alcoholfrom about twenty-five grams of sugar alcohol per day to about fifty-twograms of sugar alcohol per day, the method effective to decrease themortality rate of the first group of piglets during at least a portionof the pre-weaning period and the sugar alcohol comprising sorbitol. 3.The method of claim 2 wherein the method is effective to decrease themortality rate of the first group of piglets during at least a portionof the pre-weaning period to about 4.6 percent, or less.
 4. The methodof claim 2 wherein the method is effective to decrease the mortalityrate of the first group of young piglets during at least a portion ofthe pre-weaning period to about four percent, or less.
 5. The method ofclaim 2 wherein the first lactating sow is provided with a first dietduring the pre-weaning period, the first diet comprising: the effectiveamount of an animal feed; and the effective amount of the sugar alcohol;the method effective to decrease the mortality rate of the first groupof piglets during the pre-weaning period as compared to the mortalityrate of a second group of piglets during the pre-weaning period,wherein: the second group of piglets nurses from a second lactating sowduring the pre-weaning period; the second lactating sow is provided witha second diet during the pre-weaning period; and the second diet is freeof the effective amount of the sugar alcohol.
 6. The method of claim 5wherein the second diet is free of sugar alcohol.
 7. The method of claim5 wherein the first diet and the second diet are identical with theexception that the second diet is free of the effective amount of thesugar alcohol.
 8. The method of claim 5 wherein the first diet and thesecond diet are identical with the exception that the second diet isfree of sugar alcohol.
 9. The method of claim 5 wherein the method iseffective to decrease the mortality rate of the first group of pigletsduring the pre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rate of thesecond group of piglets during the pre-weaning period by at least aboutten percent.
 10. The method of claim 5 wherein the method is effectiveto decrease the mortality rate of the first group of piglets during thepre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rate of the second groupof piglets during the pre-weaning period by at least about twentypercent.
 11. The method of claim 5 wherein the method is effective todecrease the mortality rate of the first group of piglets during thepre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rate of the second groupof piglets during the pre-weaning period by at least about forty-fivepercent.
 12. The method of claim 5 wherein the method is effective todecrease the mortality rate of the first group of piglets during thepre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rate of the second groupof piglets during the pre-weaning period by at least about twopercentage points.
 13. The method of claim 5 wherein the method iseffective to decrease the mortality rate of the first group of pigletsduring the pre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rate of thesecond group of piglets during the pre-weaning period by at least aboutfour percentage points.
 14. The method of claim 5 wherein the method iseffective to decrease the mortality rate of the first group of pigletsduring the pre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rate of thesecond group of piglets during the pre-weaning period by at least aboutfive percentage points.
 15. A method of feeding a first lactating sow toimprove the health of a first group of piglets nursing from the firstlactating sow during a pre-weaning period compared to the health of asecond group of piglets nursing from a second lactating sow, the methodcomprising feeding the first lactating sow a first diet during thepre-weaning period, the first diet comprising: an effective amount ofthe animal feed; and an effective amount of the sugar alcohol, theeffective amount of sugar alcohol from about twenty-five grams of sugaralcohol per day to about fifty-two grams of sugar alcohol per day andthe sugar alcohol comprising sorbitol, the method effective to increasethe overall live weight of the first group of piglets at weaning ascompared to the overall live weight of the second group of piglets atweaning wherein: the second group of piglets nurses from the secondlactating sow during the pre-weaning period; the second lactating sow isprovided with a second diet during the pre-weaning period; and the firstdiet and the second diet are identical with the exception that thesecond diet is free of the effective amount of the sugar alcohol. 16.The method of claim 15 wherein the second diet is free of sugar alcohol.17. The method of claim 15 wherein the method is effective to increasethe overall live weight of the first group of piglets at weaning ascompared to the overall live weight of the second group of piglets atweaning by at least about ten percent.
 18. A method of feeding a firstlactating sow, a first group of piglets nursing from the first lactatingsow during a pre-weaning period, the method comprising feeding the firstlactating sow a first diet during the pre-weaning period the first dietcomprising: an effective amount of the animal feed; and an effectiveamount of the sugar alcohol, the sugar alcohol comprising sorbitol in anamount from about twenty-five grams per day to about fifty-two grams perday, wherein, as measured from start to finish of the pre-weaningperiod, milk production of the first lactating sow is increased relativeto a second sow and a total animal feed intake, on a dry basis, of thefirst lactating sow is substantially the same as the total animal feedintake, on a dry basis, of the second lactating sow nursing a secondgroup of piglets during the pre-weaning period, wherein: the secondlactating sow is provided with a second diet of the effective amount ofthe animal feed during the pre-weaning period; and the second diet isfree of the effective amount of the sugar alcohol.
 19. The method ofclaim 18 wherein the second diet is free of sugar alcohol.
 20. Themethod of claim 18 wherein the first diet and the second diet areidentical with the exception that the second diet is free of theeffective amount of the sugar alcohol.
 21. The method of claim 18wherein the first diet and the second diet are identical with theexception that the second diet is free of sugar alcohol.
 22. The methodof claim 5 wherein the method is effective to decrease the mortalityrate of the first group of piglets during the pre-weaning period ascompared to the mortality rate of the second group of piglets during atleast a portion of the pre-weaning period by at least about fifty-fivepercent.
 23. The method of claim 5 wherein the method is effective todecrease the mortality rate of the first group of piglets during thepre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rate of the second groupof piglets during at least a portion of the pre-weaning period by atleast about four percentage points.
 24. The method of claim 5 wherein:the parity of the first lactating sow is at least two litters; theparity of the second lactating sow is at least two litters; the methodis effective to decrease the mortality rate of the first group ofpiglets during the pre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rateof a second group of piglets during the pre-weaning period by at leastabout sixty-three percent.
 25. The method of claim 5 wherein: the parityof the first lactating sow is at least two litters; the parity of thesecond lactating sow is at least two litters; and the method iseffective to decrease the mortality rate of the first group of pigletsduring the pre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rate of asecond group of piglets during the pre-weaning period by at least abouteight percentage points.
 26. The method of claim 2 wherein the method iseffective to decrease the mortality rate of the first group of pigletsduring at least a portion of the pre-weaning period to about 3.5percent, or less.
 27. A method of decreasing the mortality rate of agroup of piglets nursing from a lactating sow during a pre-weaningperiod, the method comprising: feeding the lactating sow an effectiveamount of an animal feed during the pre-weaning period; and feeding thelactating sow at least about twenty-five grams of sugar alcohol per dayduring the pre-weaning period, wherein the sugar alcohol comprisessorbitol in an amount from about twenty-five grams per day to aboutfifty-two grams per day, the method effective to decrease the mortalityrate of the group of piglets.
 28. The method of claim 27 wherein thesugar alcohol is sorbitol.
 29. The method of claim 15 wherein the methodis effective to increase the overall live weight of the first group ofpiglets at weaning as compared to the overall live weight of the secondgroup of piglets at weaning by at least about twelve percent.
 30. Themethod of claim 5 wherein the method is effective to decrease themortality rate of the first group of piglets during the pre-weaningperiod as compared to the mortality rate of the second group of pigletsduring at least a portion of the pre-weaning period by at least aboutforty-eight percent.
 31. The method of claim 5 wherein the method iseffective to decrease the mortality rate of the first group of pigletsduring the pre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rate of thesecond group of piglets during the pre-weaning period by at least aboutfifty-five percent.
 32. The method of claim 5 wherein: the parity of thefirst lactating sow is at least two litters; the parity of the secondlactating sow is at least two litters; and the method is effective todecrease the mortality rate of the first group of piglets during thepre-weaning period as compared to the mortality rate of a second groupof piglets during the pre-weaning period by at least about sevenpercentage points.
 33. The method of claim 15 wherein: the parity of thefirst lactating sow is at least two litters; the parity of the secondlactating sow is at least two litters; and the method is effective toincrease the overall live weight of the first group of piglets atweaning as compared to the overall live weight of the second group ofpiglets at weaning by at least about fourteen percent.
 34. The method ofclaim 33 wherein: the method is effective to increase the overall liveweight of the first group of piglets at weaning as compared to theoverall live weight of the second group of piglets at weaning by atleast about seventeen percent.
 35. The method of claim 1 wherein themethod is effective to decrease the mortality rate of the group ofpiglets during at least a portion of the pre-weaning period to about 4.6percent, or less.
 36. The method of claim 1 wherein: the parity of thelactating sow is at least two litters; and the method is effective todecrease the mortality rate of the group of piglets during thepre-weaning period to 5.7 percent, or less.
 37. A method of increasingthe weight gained by a first group of piglets during a pre-weaningperiod, the first group of piglets nursing from a first lactating sowduring the pre-weaning period, the method comprising: feeding the firstlactating sow a first diet during the pre-weaning period, the first dietcomprising: an effective amount of an animal feed; and an effectiveamount of sugar alcohol, the effective amount of sugar alcohol fromabout twenty-five grams of sugar alcohol per day to about fifty-twograms of sugar alcohol per day and the sugar alcohol comprising sorbitoland the method effective to increase the weight gained by the firstgroup of piglets during the pre-weaning period as compared to the weightgained by a second group of piglets during the pre-weaning period,wherein: the second group of piglets nurses from a second lactating sowduring the pre-weaning period; the second lactating sow is provided witha second diet during the pre-weaning period; and the first diet and thesecond diet are identical with the exception that the second diet isfree of the effective amount of the sugar alcohol.
 38. A method offeeding a lactating sow, the method comprising: feeding the lactatingsow an effective amount of an animal feed during the pre-weaning period;and feeding the lactating sow an effective amount of sugar alcoholduring the pre-weaning period, the effective amount of sugar alcoholfrom about twenty-five grams of sugar alcohol per day to about fifty-twograms of sugar alcohol per day and the sugar alcohol comprisingsorbitol, wherein the method is effective to increase the milkproduction efficiency of the lactating sow.
 39. A method of feeding afirst lactating sow, the method comprising: feeding the first lactatingsow an effective amount of an animal feed during a pre-weaning period;and feeding the first lactating sow an effective concentration of sugaralcohol during the pre-weaning period, the effective concentration basedon the total dry weight of a feed composition, and the feed compositioncomprising the animal feed and the sugar alcohol, the sugar alcoholcomprising sorbitol in an amount from about twenty-five grams per day toabout fifty-two grams per day, wherein the method is effective toincrease the milk production efficiency of the first lactating sow. 40.The method of claim 39 wherein: the first lactating sow is provided witha first diet during the pre-weaning period, the first diet comprising:the effective amount of the animal feed; and the effective concentrationof the sugar alcohol; and the method is effective to increase the milkproduction efficiency of the first lactating sow during the pre-weaningperiod as compared to the milk production efficiency of a secondlactating sow during the pre-weaning period, wherein: the secondlactating sow is provided with a second diet during the pre-weaningperiod; and the second diet is free of the effective concentration ofthe sugar alcohol.
 41. The method of claim 2 wherein the method iseffective to decrease the mortality rate of the first group of pigletsduring at least a portion of the pre-weaning period to about 3.5percent, or less.
 42. The method of claim 2 wherein the method iseffective to decrease the mortality rate of the first group of pigletsduring at least a portion of the pre-weaning period to about 5.7percent, or less.
 43. The method of claim 15 wherein the method iseffective to increase the overall live weight of the first group ofpiglets at weaning as compared to the overall live weight of the secondgroup of piglets at weaning by at least about five percent.
 44. Themethod of claim 27 wherein the method is effective to decrease themortality rate of the group of piglets during at least a portion of thepre-weaning period to about 5.7 percent, or less.
 45. The method ofclaim 38 wherein the method is effective to increase milk productionefficiency of the lactating sow by at least two percent during thepre-weaning period.
 46. The method of claim 39 wherein the method iseffective to increase milk production efficiency of the first lactatingsow by at least two percent during the pre-weaning period.
 47. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the sugar alcohol further comprises adonitol,allitol, altritol, arabinitol, dulcitol, erythritol, glycerol, iditol,inositol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol,rhamnitol, threitol, xylitol, or any combination of any of these. 48.The method of claim 2, wherein the sugar alcohol further comprisesadonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol, dulcitol, erythritol, glycerol,iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, perseitol,ribitol, rhamnitol, threitol, xylitol, or any combination of any ofthese.
 49. The method of claim 15, wherein the sugar alcohol furthercomprises adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol, dulcitol, erythritol,glycerol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol,perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, threitol, xylitol, or any combination ofany of these.
 50. The method of claim 18, wherein the sugar alcoholfurther comprises adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol, dulcitol,erythritol, glycerol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol,mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, threitol, xylitol, or anycombination of any of these.
 51. The method of claim 27, wherein thesugar alcohol further comprises adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol,dulcitol, erythritol, glycerol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol,maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, threitol, xylitol, orany combination of any of these.
 52. The method of claim 37, wherein thesugar alcohol further comprises adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol,dulcitol, erythritol, glycerol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol,maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, threitol, xylitol, orany combination of any of these.
 53. The method of claim 38, wherein thesugar alcohol further comprises adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol,dulcitol, erythritol, glycerol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol,maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, threitol, xylitol, orany combination of any of these.
 54. The method of claim 39, wherein thesugar alcohol further comprises adonitol, allitol, altritol, arabinitol,dulcitol, erythritol, glycerol, iditol, inositol, isomalt, lactitol,maltitol, mannitol, perseitol, ribitol, rhamnitol, threitol, xylitol, orany combination of any of these.